Quotes taken from Locke: Two Treatises of Government edited by Peter Laslett
At this point John Locke takes to task Sir Robert’s attempt to give Adams sovereignty of the world and man by his creation. The first struggle Locke faces is Sir. Robert’s assertion that to suppose natural freedom in mankind means to deny Adam’s creation. However, this is a subtle use of words that Locke writes concerning this assertion by Sir Robert. Locke states, “For I find no difficulty to suppose the Natural Freedom of Mankind, though I have always believed the Creation of Adam…” Anyone who reads this passage cannot help but notice the use of suppose and believed and how different they make the meaning of his thought. Locke does not necessarily believe in the Natural Freedom of Mankind, but does for fact believe and admits to have believed for sometime in the Creation of Adam. This does not present a direct refutation of Sir Robert’s own assertion that to believe in the Natural Freedom of Mankind denies Adam’s Creation. Even Locke fails to admit he believes in the Natural Freedom of Mankind, only stating one can suppose it.
Next Locke presents the second issue, that being that by Appointment Adam was made governor of the world by God. There are three instances in which Locke states this Appointment was possible: “Providence orders, or the Law of Nature directs, or positive Revelation declares…” Of these he denies that Providence could have been the appointment of Adam, which will be discussed momentarily. The Law of Nature and and positive Revelation are two interesting terms for Locke to use. We can simplify and attempt to understand this better if we change positive to it’s other meaning: law. The Law of Nature we know is a bastardization of the Natural Law and of the Natural Right, which proceeded the Law of Nature in previous epochs. The most direct ancestor of the Law of Nature is Natural Law, which St. Thomas defines as the Divine Law written on the hearts of man. Locke constrains religion first by making Revelation legalistic, which makes it all too human. Secondly he changes the Natural Law to the Law of Nature, again taking away the divine and replacing it with a more human element. Providence is the only one where Locke cannot remove the divine and thus he dismisses it by stating that if Adam received governorship by Providence it would have happened prior to his creation. It would be silly he asserts for Adam to have received his governorship over the world by Providence, because there was nothing to govern, not government upon his creation.
Locke then looks at Sir Robert’s assertion from the Law of Nature perspective. Locke argues that to assert Adam’s governorship by the Law of Nature is like saying that Man is governor over his children by right of nature. However, in this instance Locke points that Adam could neither be governor of the world, nor father when he had no government or children to make him governor of the world or father by right of nature. However, Sir Robert’s responds to this by asserting that Adam was not governor in fact but in habit. Yet, let us look at the problem of making Adam governor of the world by his creation through a different method.
Locke asserts Adam could not have been made governor of the world by his creation because he has no government; government does not come until the Fall, which is long after Adam’s creation. In fact, if one looks at the Book of Genesis they will find that government does not exist among Adam, Eve and their two sons. In fact government is not created until Adam’s son Cain slays Abel and is banished to the land of Nod by God. Cain is the founder of the city, not Adam, which makes Cain-a killer- the founder of the City according to Moses. This is why Sir Robert’s assertion that Adam gains governorship over the world by creation. Cain, not Adam, is the first governor that we encounter in the Bible. In fact, the children of Adam reject government until the Jews insist God give them a king. They are enslaved by the greatest government of the day- the Egyptians. A murderer, a betrayer to his family and his God is the founder of the City. The City is founded upon sin according to the Bible.
Adam was made king of the world by his creation, not a king in fact, but a king in act which according to Locke means he was no king at all. This same argument, made by Sir Robert Locke will argue, means that Noah too was king of the world by his creation because it was his destiny to outlive his brethren. Belief in Adam’s creation and to suppose Natural Freedom of Mankind do not counteract each other according to Locke. Because Adam’s creation did not mean he was absolute ruler of the world as has been shown, one can still suppose the Natural Freedom of Mankind.
Stumble It!
Locke’s First Treatise is, indeed, fascinating, although nearly nobody does take it seriously. As a Spinozist I immediately remarked his adherence to Spinoza’s famous “Deus sive Natura”. After having carefully prepared his readers in a loose or ambivalent style, that it makes no difference whether one aqscribes things to nature or to God (‘by the course of nature’, ‘by appointment of God himself’, ‘Nature requires that’, ‘nature appoints’, God and nature has given’, by natural or Divine right’) he uses in chapter 11/111 without a clause or condition the expressions “God or Nature” and “naturally or by God’s institution”. In paragraph 116 he once more writes: ‘by the law of God or Nature’. No informed reader of the seventeenth century could avoid recognizing in these words the well-known blasphemy, which went around and was widely quoted as the indication of Spinoza’s shocking position”.
This is quite a up-to-date information. I think I’ll share it on Twitter.